wealth and repay the debt from it. Thus, the view that in this case his consent is not taken into consideration, and that he may be compelled to make the transfer, is a strong one, so that the creditor’s right is not lost.

His statement, “nor that of the transferee when the transfer is to a solvent person”: regarding the transferee, there is some detail concerning his consent. If the transfer is to a solvent person, his consent is not taken into consideration; but if it is to someone who is not solvent, his consent is taken into consideration. This is due to the Prophet’s statement: “The delay of a wealthy person in paying is injustice, and if one of you is transferred in respect of his debt to a solvent person, let him accept the transfer.” (1) The implication is that if he is transferred to someone who is not solvent, he is not required to accept the transfer.

Thus, with respect to consent, the transferor, the transferee, and the assigned debtor fall into three categories:

The first is one whose consent is required in every case: the transferor.

The second is one whose consent is not required in any case: the assigned debtor.

The third is one concerning whom there is detail: the transferee. If the transfer is to a solvent person, his consent is not stipulated; but if it is to someone who is not solvent, his consent is stipulated.

Who, then, is the solvent person?

The answer is that the scholars said: he is one who is able to repay by his word, his wealth, and his person.

As for “his word,” this means that he is not someone who lies, making promises and then breaking them. Such a person is one who delays payment. Therefore, if he transfers him to a person who is wealthy but is accustomed to delaying payment, making promises and lying, then the transferee’s consent is taken into consideration.

“And his wealth” means that he possesses wealth from which he is able to repay. If he is poor, the transferee’s consent is taken into consideration.